June 27, 2004 03:08:19pm
Re: Mercedes-Benz hearts netlabels?
> When i used the word Masses, its obvious I did not mean mass consumption.
When i said mass consumption, i was talking about Sony-type labels, which rely on mass consumption.
>>Tell me: how can a bunch of moneydriven 9-5'ers
>>replace a serious netlabel-owner's "passionate"
>>(as Sebastian puts it) perspective?
>Whats even the point of this question? Again I fail to see the connection.
>I also find that reducing all of MB's customer base to money driven, money greedy people as immature.
I meant that most probably no MB staff (not costumers!) will have the same kind of dedication as netlabel-owners do (who founded the netlabel from their own convictions), seeing that they're just doing what they're told to do. But hey maybe there's uber-enthousiastic folks working there...
>A type of audience we don't normally target. I see no problem with this..someone doing the work for us that we dont want or
>care to do.
I wouldn't see a problem either if it were a non-profit organisation.
>>In this way they piss on what defines netlabels.
> In what way? I fail to see the connection here. You're reaching.
>Only difference here is they are using the music content to keep people at their site or attract a few new visitors.. Where
>on our sites the material itself is the main attraction and the entire point.
Exactly... and using artists free of charge to promote their business is not abuse to you?
>>Obviously it is my conception that no worthy
>>artist can actually live off their productions
Ok imagine i used "serious".
>This type of mindset has become a pet peeve of mine and I see it as entirely too simplistic and naive. First of all, any
>serious musician can attest and agree on the annoyance of people asking how much money they make off music or if they can
>live off of it. However, this isn't the entire picture.
>Many of us work or have worked in fields related to our skills as a
>musician, be it sessioning, video games, engineering or even elevator music, whatever. There is nothing wrong with making a
>living off of what you love to do, and many of us see this as an actual goal in life. fuck working for other people and fuck
>being completely broke.
I never disapproved of these types of jobs as i was talking about "their productions", as in personal works, meant for release purely as music. Nobody likes being broke or working for other people.
>We aren't in this for the money. Which is where
>the hyopcrite accusation I made earlier comes in.
All i'm saying is that i believe the artists shouldn't allow MB to use their music simply because they use it to their corporation's advantage (who _are_ in it for the money). Ofcourse every artist should decide that for him/herself if they get this chance. To me it would be something like selling my soul for misdirected promotion.
>>It's a question of artists' integrity.
>No it's not, I fail to see this connection.
The connection is: when you sell your soul to the devil, you lose your artists' integrity.
>Again I think this is being naive, simplistic, and very exagerated in regards to this MB situation.
It's easy to refute anything by calling it naive or simplistic.
>Anyways, we're all entitled to our own opinions but I see yours and similar ones as being entirely way off balanced and
>ignoring larger pictures.
If i ignored any larger pictures, it was because i didn't want to make a book of my text. I know well enough what i'm talking about.
>I also think they give this MB site way too much credit and are over emphasizing on the
>seriousness of the matter.